leeburgess wrote:i love all these scots hating england, when it's so blatently obvious that the main factor is jealously.

no it's not, it's the fact that a lot of english people were determined the team was going to win the world cup. and they didn't, so it's funny.

not determined, just hopeful, and as all the other countries in the world bar scotland would agree that we were high up in the favourites, it's not just us english thinking that.and seen as our team consists of players people actually know the names of, and can get into these major tournaments, i'd say jealously is a massive factor, even if you don't feel it, it actually is the underlying reason for it all.

I genuinely couldn't give a fuck about the English national team (part of me wanted them to win it since I drew them in the sweepstake in work), I only get annoyed at the ignorance shown by folk, not as such England fans but generally from the media.

There's no knowledge of anything outside of England, nothing is better than the Premiership, and anything outside it is inferior in their eyes. Listen to folk like Alan Shearer and Gareth Southgate and they've got no interest in anything outwith their own little world.

Fuck, Brazil scored from a corner tonight and Clive Tyldesley said they'd scored a "British" goal. The same Clive Tyldesdale that had a dig at the Spanish squad the other night because they weren't sing their national anthem - the same national anthem that doesn't have any recognised lyrics. Listening to shite like that and it's no wonder want to see England fail if it makes pricks like that suffer.

leeburgess wrote:not determined, just hopeful, and as all the other countries in the world bar scotland would agree that we were high up in the favourites, it's not just us english thinking that.and seen as our team consists of players people actually know the names of, and can get into these major tournaments, i'd say jealously is a massive factor, even if you don't feel it, it actually is the underlying reason for it all.

leeburgess wrote:i love all these scots hating england, when it's so blatently obvious that the main factor is jealously.

jealous of what though? Winning one world cup AGES ago with a goal that never was, other than that, being put out atthe quarter final stage and usually causing a riot when ithappens?

We go to the world cup (well, we used to go), we knew we'd never get beyond the group stages, so we just went and had huge parties with the locals, watch our team almost get there (We always had to be teased by the team, get to match 3 with a chance of going through and then spontaneously combusting) then we'd all get pissed one more time then fly home.

The papers never even expect us to win a game, we always go with the message "Dont come home to soon" whereas in England, you all seem to think you have a God given right to win it, which seems to be handed down by the press telling yo your team is great. Your league is great, yes, but most of the "great" players are foreign in it.

Finally- the sheer hypocrisy of the English moaning about the goal that never was, when a goal that never was won you the sdamn thing is hilarious. You were being pumped and a second goal would only have delayed the inevitable- your team just isnt good enough. get on with it, go to the world cup and party, rather than getting interviewed on the TV saying "Iv paid all this money and this isnt good enough"...

Iv no beef with English people in general- your fun loving dudes and any time Im down for a gig its a blast, you just need to stop believing you have a right to win everything you enter.

PS, on the news yesterday- Andy Murray is apparently Englands best hope of winning a major event this summer. When did dunblane become an English colony?

PPS Here is a pretty rounded, balanced article...

By Tom de Castella

England has exited the football World Cup and once again failed to live up to expectations. But why do the English fool themselves, again and again, into believing they can win, and might they actually enjoy it?

According to Wikipedia, hysteria is "a state of mind of unmanageable fear or emotional excesses. The fear is often caused by multiple events in one's past that involved some sort of severe conflict."

Sound familiar?

After a humiliating 4-1 defeat to Germany, England has once again entered an unofficial period of national mourning. It's something the country goes through after every World Cup or European Championship exit - from euphoric anticipation to shock and despair in the space of 90 minutes.

It's a communal moment, people sharing the pain with each other at the bus stop. It's that thing about big World Cup games that end in tragedy

Simon Kuper So have the English become hysterical in their dealings with the national side?

Harry Eyres, writer of the Financial Times's Slow Lane column, believes the passion has taken on a desperate, obsessive quality: "Too much seems to hang on it. We appear needy as a nation. There's an extraordinarily neurotic fear and excessive expectation about watching England. I don't think we're in touch with reality."

The world is entranced by the beautiful game every four years. But not everyone seems to invest as much importance in their national side.

On holiday in Spain during the 2002 World Cup, Eyres remembers pulling into a bar in Andalucia to catch the end of the Spanish team's quarter final with South Korea.

The talented Spanish side went on to lose but there was no vitriol, Eyres recalls: "It was amazing how lightly they took it. This was a working class, blue collar bar. Can you imagine a pub full of builders in England when the team get knocked out - it would be a tragedy. My impression is that in Spain it just doesn't matter so much."

BLAME A COLONIAL PAST? Some believe the English feel entitled to win the World Cup - which derives from the entitlement of Empire.But historian Linda Colley, who specialises on empire and nationalism, says too much is attributed to loss of the colonies.

"Surely the more crucial issues are that we invented soccer, so feel a proprietorial interest in it," says Colley, speaking to the BBC News website. "And secondly soccer is hyped and commercialised more here than in many other countries. The broader issue may well be uncertainty about collective identity."

Writer Simon Kuper sees a similar imbalance of expectation when England is compared with France, where he lives. If the English did badly in this competition, the French - finalists in the last World Cup - did even worse, getting knocked out in the first round.

But in France, says Kuper, author of Why England Lose, no-one thought the home side would actually win.

What enraged the French public was not poor displays on the pitch but the mutinous behaviour of the team's arrogant stars.

"Unlike the English the French are able to switch off the team when they're angry with it. People are disgusted. But they don't go into the anguish of looking at the country as a whole. They just say the team are horrible people."

Not only do the English never learn. They appear to thrive on the masochism of outlandish hope followed by tragic defeat, he argues.

"I think people enjoy the ritual. Every four years it happens and takes you back to previous tournaments. It's a communal moment, people sharing the pain with each other at the bus stop. It's that thing about big World Cup games that end in tragedy - usually on penalties, ideally to Germany."

But that ritual comes at a price, says Kuper, who sees a crucial difference between the attitude of the English side and that of his native Holland.

Anger-land

"When a Dutch player scores he's happy but when an England player does it's all clenched jaw, relief and anger. It's very stressful for the England players. It's like with children at school, when they know the expectations are too high and they can't meet them."

But if England is deceiving itself about its ability, who or what is guilty of inflating expectations unrealistically high?

'Here we go again'... and there they went again Britain's tabloid press frequently seem to overplay the side's ability. But that's no surprise, says Roy Greenslade, a professor of journalism and a former editor of the Daily Mirror. Playing on the hopes of fans, and reinforcing their disappointment, is all part of the never ending circulation battle.

"The biggest football fans are tabloid readers. And the popular papers both respond to and ramp up the public mood. And it is our national sport. You don't get this level of interest for cricket."

But there is something unique about Britain's newspaper industry, he says: "We are different in having a competitive national press. So the papers can galvanise a population across the whole country. They can't do that in France or Germany where much of the press is regional."

Back in 1966 when England won the World Cup and Greenslade was a young reporter for the now defunct Barking Advertiser there were only two national tabloids. Today the newspaper scene is almost unrecognisable by comparison.

Diagnosing defeat

"Make no mistake the papers set the agenda. And today we have feeding frenzies. Savage as it sounds the Madeleine McCann story sold papers and previously there was Princess Diana. The World Cup is another first class example of a feeding frenzy that electrifies the newspapers."

What this frenzy is really about is fear of national decline, says the writer and broadcaster Toby Young: "In a sense it's people's anxiety about Britain's waning influence on the international stage. It expresses itself in their anxiety about how England will fare in the World Cup."

And that's why beating Germany has become so important.

"The chant 'two world wars and one world cup!' rings increasingly hollow each time we're beaten by a German team. It's the ability of the German team to punch above its weight in football terms. And that seems to us to reflect their ability to punch above their weight economically."

There is a political angle to all this with theorists on opposite sides of the ideological debate diagnosing defeat in different ways. "If you're on the left it's the players who are overpaid and selfish exhibiting the spirit of materialism introduced by Thatcher," he says. "If you're on the right it's because of a lack of confidence and self belief."

The loss to Germany has prompted much soul searching. So would the English be better off hiding the their flags next time around?

Young thinks not - believing that win or (mostly likely) lose, it's all for the good.

"In this age, here's something that for once genuinely brings us together as a country. And the anxiety about national decline would be there whether it's expressed in this way or not. You can describe it as hysterical if you like but I'd say it's cathartic."

The healthy side

Psychologist Dr Sandy Wolfson agrees. She has studied the behaviour and emotional lives of football fans and argues the World Cup is good for the mind.

BBC Sport World Cup 2010 "The vast majority of fans get many psychological benefits. There's always going to be moments of depression and despondency when you lose. The key thing is its ability to get social interaction between people from all walks of life. You'll get a highly paid lawyer in the pub talking to a street cleaner. And football's a good way of getting people to think intellectually. You can also scream and shout in a socially acceptable way."

But aren't we all living in denial? "The optimism is healthy. And it's cyclical, you get the renewal of hope after defeat. I'm not denying your team lets you down and you're going to have a hard time. There will be a lot of people angry, upset and negative. But research shows that within a week you're thinking about the next event."

Surely there is one simple lesson we can learn from this predictable debacle. Whoever gets the poisoned chalice of being England manager in four years' time, could for once learn to manage expectations. When the inevitable question from the press pack arrives - "So can we win the World Cup this time?" the coach would reply: "Probably not. Let's see if we can get to the second round first shall we?"

Martin wrote:There's no knowledge of anything outside of England, nothing is better than the Premiership, and anything outside it is inferior in their eyes. Listen to folk like Alan Shearer and Gareth Southgate and they've got no interest in anything outwith their own little world.

Hate to burst yer bubble but Alan Shearer and Gareth Southgate do no represent the whole of England.

Point out where I said they were.

JackGDS wrote:Me and no-one I know (including everyone on here) is that simple and it's sorta patronising to say we are.

Again, point out where I said you were. Ignoring the 'patronising' comment.

JackGDS wrote:Your problem is with the beeb, ITV, and the press in general.

Not denying this. You could've stopped your post here and I'd have agreed with it.

JackGDS wrote:They are optimistic, upbeat and yeah they do rave on about our (few) successes but that's what they're meant to do.

They're ignorant, arrogant, and they're actually meant to give an educated, professional, unbiased, neutral opinion on the game they're being paid to cover. If I'm watching a game with two South American teams, I couldn't care less about 15 minutes analysis a throw-in England might've been awarded three games ago.

JackGDS wrote:Are the STV gonna open up the news with a story about how shit the Scotland team are and shoot down any prospect of them ever getting anywhere? No. It's close to the truth though.

Pretty much. Not that I care about the Scottish national team either, but it's generally accepted that Scotland are shite and it's one of the only times the media up here will call it as they see it.

Not going to comment on the rest. I don't know how much of it you actually believe, but it's generally shite. You can ram the "racist" comment aswell.

"I only get annoyed at the ignorance shown by folk, not as such England fans but generally from the media."

^ From the first paragraph of my original post. You seem to be annoyed that I'm calling you all ignorant and uneducated or whatever, and that if my problem was with the media then I should've said so. I clearly did.

I'd say Celtic fans are pretty ignorant/arrogant for expecting to win the league and thus not turning up at matches just because they lose a few, and harping on about the decisions you don't get all the time...

If I rubbed in your old firm losses as much as you Scots did England I'm sure you'd be pretty peeved as well. I don't blame you Scots for being bitter though to be honest, as your houses are all made out of granite and it's winter 364 days of the year.

Martin wrote:"I only get annoyed at the ignorance shown by folk, not as such England fans but generally from the media."

^ From the first paragraph of my original post. You seem to be annoyed that I'm calling you all ignorant and uneducated or whatever, and that if my problem was with the media then I should've said so. I clearly did.

But then why do you and the rest constantly run England fans down on here or wherever else? If your problem is only with media, insult the media and the media only. There's no need to call us (the supporters) stuff and imply we're all fools for believing we had a chance.

no-sssweat wrote:If you type "Sectarianism" into google the top result is about the old firm

It's because it's only ever used in connection with Celtic and Rangers. Anti-Catholicism wouldn't go down well with the majority of Sun and Daily Record readers in Scotland, so the media chose a word that would let them use the age-old "both sides as bad as the other" adage, and it's caught on.

Any other similar situation and they'll use racism, bigotry, anti-semitism, xenophobia or whatever. They won't use the word 'sectarian' in an article unless football's involved. It sells stories.